Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: stillanon ( )
Date: December 06, 2018 05:12PM

Anyone watch "Godless" on Netflix? Jeff Daniels plays a damn evil gang leader that robs, steals and kills entire towns. Men, women and children. One of the most evil characters ever. In episode 2, he explains how he got so ruthless. When he was a kid, his family was headed west in part of a wagon train.The wagon train was attacked, in Utah,by Indians. But, turns out, the attackers were "white religious men from the Great Salt Lake". They killed his entire family and raped the women before they died. He was spared and taken by a mormon family. He remembers seeing the man's "one of his 14 wives, wearing his Mammy's skirt". He learned to love his new "father". "He taught me with a stick, a bullwhip and a knife how to love". Really makes the mormons look bad. Plus, responsible for his evil soul. I recommend watching.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Guy3 ( )
Date: December 06, 2018 09:07PM

I saw it, loved it. Clearly hardcore PTSD. Back then, with all the shootings and near death experiences I bet PTSD was quite common.

I also love how they don't go too much into it. That he experience it and it ruined his life, even though he didn't die. Pretty messed up.

Even if Brigham Young didn't order it, and I lean towards that he didn't, the fact that they felt that this was their God given land, and that God was on their side, is so desturbing that our religion can create such blind zealousness. Its quite scary.

I watched the whoel thing in two days. Jeff Daniels best work in my opinion.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 06, 2018 11:41PM

I'd suggest BY almost certainly did order it. The evidence isn't direct, but there's a ton of circumstantial proof.

BY spent a lot of time whipping up anti-US sentiment in SLC, sent his minions south (and north) to do the same on the CA and OR trails, and ordered his subordinates to talk to the Native American tribes about cooperating against the Yanks. One reason Wilford Woodruff's journal is shut up in the vault is that it says BY told his counselors that he expected his agitation to result in bloodshed on the OR trail, which indicates that he was aware of the likely results of what he had down in southern Utah.

In the first few days of the standoff at MM, BY was getting frequent reports, and sending frequent instructions, to the Dixie Mormon leaders. All that is clearly evident in the journals and other records. There is no document indicating that BY specifically ordered the massacre, but he did say that the Fancher party should under no circumstances be allowed to move on to CA.

With political and military leaders, words have consequences. As Shakespeare has a king say, "who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" No one responded, but lo and behold the priest was quickly killed. I believe that BY probably gave explicit instructions, but even if he didn't there is good reason to believe he knew what the consequences of his actions and speeches would be.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: [|] ( )
Date: December 07, 2018 12:54AM

One must also consider BY's instructions issued 7 months prior that resulted in the Santa Clara Ambush

https://www.docdroid.net/tpmOmZN/pursue-retake-punish.pdf#page=11

"Following the same route five days later, the California-bound mail carried letters from Brigham Young dated February 6, 1857, and addressed to
Lewis Brunson at Fillmore,William H. Dame at Parowan, and Isaac C.
Haight at Cedar City.These letters, the retained copy of which appears over
Brigham Young’s name, echoed the ominous language of the earlier
instructions:
"Be on the look out now, & have a few trusty men ready in case of need to pursue,
retake & punish.We do not suppose there would be any prosecutions for false imprisonments,
or tale bearers for witnesses. ... Make no noise of this matter, & keep this letter
safe.We write for your eye alone, & to men that can be trusted.”23
While more explicit in one respect (“pursue, retake & punish”), these
letters were silent in another critical detail: Unlike the earlier letters, they
did not state that a penalty was to be imposed only after the theft of stock." [page 74]


"The Santa Clara ambush was not what Brigham Young intended, in that
it was not two backsliding felons who were attacked in the dark. But the
ambush was the result of events he set in motion. He directed subordinates
to take extra-legal action under specified conditions, knowing that innocents
might suffer with the guilty because no “tale bearers” were to be
spared. If he did not intend Dame and Haight to read his instructions as
they have been interpreted here, that reading is justified by the indirect phrasing of his letters. If residents of southern Utah went beyond the mark
in implementing his instructions, no effective chastisement occurred. All of
the men to whom letters were sent retained their church, civil, and military
positions as though nothing untoward had happened." [pages 84-85]


By the time of MMM, Briggy had already expressed his feelings to the folks in southern Utah.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 07, 2018 01:30AM

Exactly. And if there were an explicit order, as I think there probably was, it would never have been committed to writing.

As you note, no one was punished until it was politically expedient to find a scapegoat. That poor man addressed his letters to his (temple-adopted) "father," Brigham Young.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: [|] ( )
Date: December 07, 2018 01:47AM

I agree that there wouldn't need to be a written order. George A. Smith had already gone through the area. He could easily have passed oral instructions from BY to the leaders in Cedar City and Parowan. It is unlikely they would have questioned an apostle who claimed to be bringing a message from Brigham Young.

And if there had been a written order, it certainly wouldn't have survived the first hint of any investigation. Like Mr. Phelps' tapes, it would have self destructed in 10 seconds.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: stillanon ( )
Date: December 07, 2018 10:42AM

Yep. And, I loved it in the start of episode 3 when Sam Watterson, the Marshall, was talking with a local about MMM. The guy says, "I heard the Indians killed and butchered those people." And, the Marshall replies "Nope-it was the mormons. They slaughtered them and they laid it on the Paiutes. But, it was the mormons".
Makes me wonder if some ex-mo is a writer or actor for "Godless".
I'm like you, binge watched 4 episodes yesterday and hope to finish the remaining 3 today and tomorrow. Great series.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Guy3 ( )
Date: December 09, 2018 07:10PM

I doubt there is an emormon on the staff. THe mentions of Mormons are really brief, and could easily come up in a Google search of massacres in the West. If his character required him to survive some sort of massive attack, a basic search could easily pop up on this.

I'm guessing its coincidence from history, not quite intentional.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: kentish ( )
Date: December 08, 2018 05:51PM

As was discussed on this topic some weeks ago, the time line was off. The series was set in the 1990s, would have to assume the early part given the lawless tenor of the series. Daniels played his part as if he was an old man, at least in his 60s. MMM was in 1857 when presumably his character was a very young child. If he was 7 and we split the story line period to 1895 then Daniels' character would be 45, even younger if the child was older than 7 at the MMM. He played him as if he was at least in his 60s. That aside it was a well acted series. Personally I preferred Daniels as Chamberlain in Gettysburg and his question response on the nature of the US from the series (slips my mind) where he played a news anchor really stands out.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: stillanon ( )
Date: December 09, 2018 04:17PM

I missed that discussion. The show, according to Hollywood, was set in the late 1880's. Daniels'character might have looked 60, but he was probably about 40. Not many lived to their 60's back then, especially in his profession. Life expectancy in 1885 was 40. So, if he was 7 or 8 or so in 1857, he would have been about
38 in 1888. Timeline is accurate.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 09, 2018 05:02PM

Those life expectancy numbers are distorted by infant and childhood deaths.

If a person lived to be 10, s/he would have a life expectancy considerably; if s/he lived to be 40, expectancy would have been about 70. People in their 60s were not uncommon.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: stillanon ( )
Date: December 09, 2018 05:16PM

Outlaws in their 60's were almost non-existent. Based on the timeline, his gang, his life, etc, he looks the part for the show.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 09, 2018 05:21PM

I was quibbling with your statement that few lived to their 60s in that era. That is false.

I'm not sure how one would know what an outlaw would look like at age 38 given that such people "were almost non-existent," but I doubt he would like someone 25 years older.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: stillanon ( )
Date: December 09, 2018 06:39PM

I'm not sure that you understood what I posted.'


You;"I'm not sure how one would know what an outlaw would look like at age 38 given that such people "were almost non-existent,"

Me; "Outlaws in their 60's were almost non-existent."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 09, 2018 07:33PM

You wrote "Daniels'character might have looked 60, but he was probably about 40" and then you estimated his age at 38. You continued, "based on the timeline, his gang, his life, etc, he looks the part for the show." That presupposes you know what a typical outlaw in that day would look like at 38.

So I wrote: "I'm not sure how one would know what an outlaw would look like at age 38."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: stillanon ( )
Date: December 09, 2018 09:10PM

I understand. Thanks. A little perspective. Historical, well known outlaws/ gunfighters in the late 1800's and their age at demise;
Jesse James; 34
Billy the Kid; 21
Wild Bill Hickok; 39
Morgan Earp; 21
Pistol Pete Eaton; 18
Pancho Villa; 45
Doc Holliday; 35
Curly Bill Brocius;35
Ike Clanton; 39
Billy Clanton; 19
Butch Cassidy 44
Harry Lonabaugh (Sundance)) Kid; 41
Most of the Dalton Gang; 23-29

Point is; Most of these bad guys started a life of crime and killing at age 15-18. Most didn't last 20 more years.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 09, 2018 09:23PM

Yes, I'm sure you are right.

Sociopaths, which most of them are, do not do well in life over the longer term.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **         ********  **    **  ********   ******** 
 **    **   **    **   **  **   **     **  **    ** 
 **    **       **      ****    **     **      **   
 **    **      **        **     ********      **    
 *********    **         **     **           **     
       **     **         **     **           **     
       **     **         **     **           **